Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#271

Post by danenania » Tue, May 08, 2018, 2:38 AM UTC

stillsut wrote: post #254

danenania wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I'd expect collision-prevention to have absolute priority over any other system. It should not be possible for any logic bug or combination of environmental factors to make the car run into a large object in its field of vision. There's no need for statistics here--an overriding 'don't run into stuff' rule will suffice. If there's truly no possible route to avoid some collision and therefore the car needs to…

> I'd expect collision-prevention to have absolute priority ..to [not] make the car run into a large object in its field of vision. This is a good point. But I think we've all placed our "toes over the curb" with a car hurtling towards us in preparation to cross the street as soon as the car has passed. No system can stop at each instance of this, nor can it recover past the point-of-no-return created each time this…

The toes over the curb thing is a potential collision threat. It's fine to statistically categorize and prioritize these, as they're everywhere. But as soon as it becomes an imminent threat (i.e. is directly in the vehicle's path), avoiding the collision should immediately become the overriding objective. If the collision is truly unavoidable (this should very rarely be the case with an AV), then it should still be slamming on the breaks and doing everything possible to lessen the force of the impact.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#272

Post by Izkata » Tue, May 08, 2018, 2:41 AM UTC

dabbledash wrote: post #259

chcknsammich wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Says the person who has never seen the ridiculous thing that is single lane road deadlock.

Pull into the intersection and go when it’s clear (on yellow or red). Gunning it so you can cut off oncoming traffic is ridiculous.

That doesn't solve it at all, you're thinking of a different problem. I got clued in from another comment that only mentioned it offhand, but this is the problem the "Pittsburgh left" tries to solve:

The traffic is a single lane, and you want to turn left. Light turns green, and you wait for the oncoming traffic to clear. All traffic behind you is stopped on a green because they can't get around you.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#273

Post by eric_h » Tue, May 08, 2018, 2:44 AM UTC

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #116

ksenzee wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My theory is that people act like jerks behind the wheel, and come across as jerks even when they're not, because drivers have no way to apologize or ask please or do any other polite thing. All they can do is honk the horn, which is like yelling "HEY!!" If there were a communication mechanism for "excuse me, the light is green now" and "oops, so sorry, didn't see you there" driving would be easier and more pleasant.

Dangerous driving can result in damage, injury, or death. That is why people are so volatile behind the wheel. I don’t think there is any system of communication that can prevent or stop road rage. Dampen, maybe, but that’s about it.

If the internet has taught us anything, it's that anything that facilitates conversation facilitates all types and styles of conversation. I'd posit that a more sophisticated inter-car communication system would add at least one new road rage incident for every one it prevents.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#274

Post by iambateman » Tue, May 08, 2018, 2:49 AM UTC

freditup wrote: post #18

I'm curious what degree of "cultural context" is built into automated cars - I feel that there has to be a lot of locale-specific techniques for driving. For example, in NYC, there's nothing at all uncommon about a pedestrian beginning to cross the street in front of you and approaching the area of your lane where you will shortly be. Pedestrians typically then stop about a foot away from your lane, let you drive pas…

I love this question. And while I’m sure it’s a two way street, I would expect traffic patterns to normalize as pedestrians learn to anticipate what a driverless car does. Pedestrians (and culture in general) will wrap itself around the technology.
It’s sort of analogous to how wagon roads were different until fast cars required some standardization. The new technology shapes expectations for what normal means in Tempe and in NY and in Pittsburgh.
The prssent cultural context assumes that a human brain is driving a car. Take the brain away, and the context has already changed.

couldn’t resist.

P.s. standardization has beaten back the whimsical variability of culture in fast food, housing, cars, most clothing, computers, phones, etc. I want more whimsical stuff.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#275

Post by gnicholas » Tue, May 08, 2018, 2:58 AM UTC

zamalek wrote: post #266

Ajedi32 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The oncoming traffic doesn't stop until the light turns red. When the light is yellow, they're actually more likely to _speed up_ in order to "make the light" rather than stop. So when the light inevitably turns red and you're in the middle of the intersection, do you either: a) Just sit there, in the middle of the intersection, blocking traffic. b) Attempt to back up, hoping there are no other cars behind you in the…

I've found that Seattle drivers are unusually respectful of amber lights - probably because getting pulled over for abusing it is more common than never.

Interestingly, yellow light laws are different in different states — so in some places people are very respectful of yellow lights.

Most states say it's OK if you enter the intersection on yellow, but a handful (not including WA, but including neighboring OR) require that you clear the intersection before the red appears.

I've sometimes wondered if "entering the intersection" includes entering the crosswalk adjacent to the intersection.

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/57ajjq/til_w...

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#276

Post by eric_h » Tue, May 08, 2018, 2:59 AM UTC

jschwartzi wrote: post #177

s_m_t wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think body language might be more important, and seems to me should be harder to detect. Eye's are pretty easy to detect because of the contrast between the whites and iris, and, of course they reflect light. Detecting the difference between a hustle, a saunter, and a day dream might be a tad more difficult.

Gaze is actually more important when you're trying to figure out whether someone sees you. If I don't see your eyes, I would assume that you don't see me at all.

> If I don't see your eyes

I think you really mean if you don't make eye contact.

Eye contact is a two-person activity. How does an autonomous car make eye contact with a person?

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#277

Post by i_feel_great » Tue, May 08, 2018, 3:07 AM UTC

freditup wrote: post #18

I'm curious what degree of "cultural context" is built into automated cars - I feel that there has to be a lot of locale-specific techniques for driving. For example, in NYC, there's nothing at all uncommon about a pedestrian beginning to cross the street in front of you and approaching the area of your lane where you will shortly be. Pedestrians typically then stop about a foot away from your lane, let you drive pas…

Soon, Uber et al will lobby government to outlaw normal pedestrian behaviour like this. Any accidents will be due to illegal behaviour.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#278

Post by systoll » Tue, May 08, 2018, 3:08 AM UTC

blahedo wrote: post #208

uptown wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR had a story about how self-driving cars in Pittsburgh wouldn't be adhering to the "Pittsburgh-left": "Even harder for autonomous cars to master are local quirks; things like "the Pittsburgh left." That's a custom unique to the city that allows the first driver trying to make a left turn to do so before oncoming cars pass through an intersection. It's one thing that Emily Duff Bartel says Uber's fleet of self-driv…

Not unique to Pittsburgh (also prevalent in Rhode Island, among other places), but more importantly, letting the first car turn left first is useful to keeping traffic flowing on narrow roads—which, in the areas that use this tactic, rely on it. So, not following local customs is a good way to snarl traffic (since the oncoming traffic will be waiting for the car to take its turn).

Not that I'd recommend doing it in an area not used to it... but that sounds like a riskier alternative to a hook turn. With hook turns, If you want to turn right, you start in the leftmost lane. When your light goes green, you 'hook' around to put yourself in front of the cars to your [initial] left. From there, the road you want to enter is straight ahead.

This way, no-one cuts across lanes where traffic has a green light.

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#279

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 08, 2018, 3:17 AM UTC

WillPostForFood wrote: post #237

vkou wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what you're describing sounds a hell of a lot safer. (It's also how people make left turns in Vancouver. The fact that it's illegal in Seattle infuriates me to no end.) The Pittsburgh left sounds like a recipe to get T-boned by an inattentive driver. Pulling into the intersection, and making a left turn when it is safe is a much better alternative.

It is legal to pull into the intersection on green or yellow, and wait until it is clear (often when the light turns red) to turn left in Seattle. It is the correct/legal way to make a left turn. Otherwise you are just going to sit there blocking traffic for multiple cycles during busy times.

[deleted]

Re: Uber vehicle reportedly saw but ignored woman it struck

#280

Post by vkou » Tue, May 08, 2018, 3:18 AM UTC

fjsolwmv wrote: post #213

vkou wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what you're describing sounds a hell of a lot safer. (It's also how people make left turns in Vancouver. The fact that it's illegal in Seattle infuriates me to no end.) The Pittsburgh left sounds like a recipe to get T-boned by an inattentive driver. Pulling into the intersection, and making a left turn when it is safe is a much better alternative.

What's illegal? Stopping in an intersection? Or exiting the intersection on red? The light would be red on exiting the intersection unless cars are illegally entering the intersection on yellow when they should be stopping because they weren't speeding and have time to stop.

It's illegal to enter an intersection if you're unable to immediately leave it. So, if you don't have a clear left turn, you're supposed to sit behind the white line.

Likewise, it's illegal to enter an intersection, going straight, when there isn't enough space in your lane, for the back of your car to clear the intersection. Doesn't stop people, though.